Homosexuals and Bisexuals

[Shane Roach]

It may do, but I can assure you that I'm not one of them, and I'm not convinced that any of the other Christians supporting same-gender marriage are either. For that matter, I don't think most of the non-Christians are either (although there are some exceptions to that).



Sure, when you speak of homosexual behaviour (although that doesn't actually make any really clearer what you think homosexual behaviour is). But you've made the claim that homosexuality itself is a behaviour. It's not.

David.

More semantic games. A person who exhibits punctuality is a person who is punctual. Same concept. Punctuality is a behavior -- the behavior of being habitually on time.

What is the point of all of this? I have many times over ceded that homosexuality might be a behavior people have little or not control over in terms of the urge to participate. If that's your issue, you have the point ceded by me from ages back.

Here is a study that both refers to homosexual behavior and undermines the claim that it is some sort of preset orientation.

Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

 

[roflcopter101]

He didn't argue anything. In addition, what he did say was in many cases very personal in nature.

I disagree on the first point.

Except for that 'desiring to extend human rights to everyone' thing.

We want injustice gone... if you think of yourself as an inherent oppressor, then perhaps you do need to leave; but I see no iron-hard reason why you can't get along with the rest of us.

Challenging your bigotry is not intolerance... it is the hallmark of a free and open society of those who cherish our rights. Disagreeing with you is not persecution, and neither is the extension of human rights to more people any affront to you... unless again, you fancy your identity as an oppressor.

The above are all valid arguments. However, I do agree that sections of that post did consisted of sarcasm and flaming, which of course is not cool (no pun intended).

I do not think it would be prudent to rest your case on a subject that has not been argued fully on your behalf, but whatever.

And, you also refuse to acknowledge the fact that the only person who has been demonstrated to post false information regarding studies has been a supporter of gay marriage.

I am afraid I have not read in detail into the article, but I will take your word for your article's accuracy based on my impressions after reading it.
However, gay marriage supporters do not all have the same arguments or etiquette, just as some may have different views of protesting Scientology: violently and in defiance of the law, or legally and peacefully.

However, my beef with you, Shane_Roach, is how the legalization of gay marriage marginalizes Christianity.
If you would be able to redirect me to one of your posts explaining why, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Maren]

It's not one movie. It's the entirety of this post, it's the responses I am getting from other gay rights supporters, it is your willingness to ignore this -

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

And then say I am not "admitting I am wrong" when I refine a statement I made. I'm not beholden to you to say, "I was wrong." I restated my position and clarified it in terms of the objections you brought up. Meanwhile, BigBadWlf says he has a copy of the study I have posted screen shots of, and not a peep out of a single gay rights proponent about it.

Talk about transparent one sidedness.

I never saw a need to. I have never claimed that every study states that homosexuals have the same number of partners as homosexuals. In fact, just prior (two posts previous) to your post I stated: "In fact, most studies that compare show that the number of sexual partners between heterosexual men and homosexual men are relatively similar, though there are one or two studies (one that ShaneRoach loves to use) that show a percentage of gays tend to have more sexual partners."

So, I basically have previously admitted that there are studies that show homosexual promiscuity and, much like you stated, between all the studies there is still questions about what the exact numbers actually are. OTOH, as I also brought up with Ben-AG, I don't see that as a reason to deny gays marriage -- in fact it is a reason to give marriage (or similar benefits) to encourage monogamy among gays. Frankly, I never saw a reason to enter into your problem with BigBadWlf about a study that I'm not familiar with, do not currently have access to (other than your screen shots), especially when you admit there is no solid consensus between the studies.

OTOH, just because you have a problem with some others is no reason to be accusing me of attacking you personally. I think those that post here and call people "bigots" and other names know I disagree with their use of those words, that I believe it hinders dialogue. I've posted before that I disagree with them doing it and here I am posting it again. Forgive me if I get tired of telling people that I don't believe they should do it (and harassing them about it) when they already know my opinion on the subject and they choose to disagree. Just as your continually trying to call out BigBadWlf doesn't seem to be productive in any way rather, to me, it reminds me of a guy trying to measure a certain part of the male anatomy (as the commercials say) against someone elses.

You want me to admit I was wrong? I thought I did last post, but just to make it clear, "all" or whatever single word in my sentence it was that I used, was overstating my case.

There you go.

Thank you.

Hardly anything at all changes regarding my case, though, whereas any evidence you folks bring up about how wonderful homosexuality is and how awful anyone is who opposes gay marriage seems to crumble upon closer inspection, and some of it is grossly misrepresented by your fellow activists, and you say and do nothing differently.

Except I don't see the reasons, based on what you are claiming, to deny same-sex marriage. If homosexuals are more likely to get STDs (much like Blacks), then we need to adress the problem -- promiscuity -- rather than demonize and discourage homosexuals (or Blacks) from being monogomous. Again, same with your study that you keep touting that claims that gays are more promiscuous (especially since there are other studies that contradict it, as you admit), merely shows that we should encourage monogamy in same-sex couples.

 

[Shane Roach]

The above are all valid arguments. However, I do agree that sections of that post did consisted of sarcasm and flaming, which of course is not cool (no pun intended).

They are not valid arguments because they are not supported by anything other than his opinion, which he has more than once simply refused to back with anything other than more of his opinions.

I am afraid I have not read in detail into the article, but I will take your word for your article's accuracy based on my impressions after reading it.
However, gay marriage supporters do not all have the same arguments or etiquette, just as some may have different views of protesting Scientology: violently and in defiance of the law, or legally and peacefully.

I do not argue homosexuality is a disease, hence the entire point of the article is, for me, to demonstrate that it was presented by a gay rights activist as saying one thing when it in fact says the precise opposite.

This is unacceptable behavior in my view, and is one of the many reasons I suspect socialist politics behind most of this. It seems that nothing substantial can be found behind all the smoke and mirrors meant to "prove" that homosexuality is healthy and good for society.

However, my beef with you, Shane_Roach, is how the legalization of gay marriage marginalizes Christianity.
If you would be able to redirect me to one of your posts explaining why, I would greatly appreciate it.

No, my argument is that many who support gay marriage do it because they want to marginalize Christianity. That is why when Wyzaard went on his anti-Christian rant I said, "I rest my case."

And I'll re-state my case that most of this is basically socialist in origin, coming from socialist political entities in both Europe and here. The connection to socialism here in the states is exceedingly easy to make since gays connected to the socialists at the early stages of the whole 60's sexual revolution, and have been safely ensconced there ever since.

Now Marx and Engels were not friendly to gay issues, but it's been a long time since they were in control of the direction of socialism.

The same people who are forever attacking sexual decency are, not surprisingly, back at work behind the gay marriage initiative as well.

 

[Skaloop]

It's not a class of people, it is a behavior. As I have explained, I now have seen psychiatric studies referencing it as exactly that, and in any event the argument was always semantic to begin with.

Seen or heard of the movie "Religulous"?

Please stop trying to play it off that there is not a large and powerful group of people attacking Christianity daily in this country. It's just plain not going to fly any longer, ok?

Ever seen or heard of the movie "Expelled"?

 

[Wyzaard]

They are not valid arguments because they are not supported by anything other than his opinion,

Nope, and...

This is unacceptable behavior in my view, and is one of the many reasons I suspect socialist politics behind most of this.

nope, and...

That is why when Wyzaard went on his anti-Christian rant

nope.

 

[Wyzaard]

I rest my case.

That you have nothing to say?

 

[David Brider]

More semantic games. A person who exhibits punctuality is a person who is punctual. Same concept. Punctuality is a behavior -- the behavior of being habitually on time.

What is the point of all of this? I have many times over ceded that homosexuality might be a behavior people have little or not control over in terms of the urge to participate. If that's your issue, you have the point ceded by me from ages back.

No, that's not the issue. The issue is that homosexuality is not, your repeated assertions to the contrary, a behaviour.

If you honestly believe that it is, then could you explain exactly what it consists of? Bearing in mind that any behaviour that is not a.) universal to all homosexual people and b.) exclusive to all homosexual people, could not realistically be described as "homosexual behaviour".

David.

 

[Wyzaard]

You certainly have done nothing to prove your case about the term "homosexual behavior" beyond simple repeated denial.

As the prevailing views of psychologists and neurological researchers do not agree with your claims, you hold a particularly heavy burden.

And btw, the only person here who is in denial... well, you both know that don't we? If you and I's truncated exchanges on this matter are any indication, homosexuality is definitely not a behavior, but a matter of attraction, desire, and feelings that have never been shown to be addressable. I can no more choose to want men than a gay man can choose to want women, no matter how much we'd like access to such innately-inscribed orientations.

 

[Polycarp1]

Okay, this has gone on long enough. I have no desire to go drag out studies that I'm not sure of the validity and objectivity of, to attempt to bulwark my own viewpoint. I can and do read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Scriptures, and both they and a direct leading from God have told me to stand in defense of gay men and women, boys and girls who are getting the short end of the stick from people who claim Christianity is their motivation.

Maybe things would be clearer here if those involved (Shane, David, roflcopter, and any others participating) were to simply state their definition of the words "homosexuality" and "homosexual" (noun meaning a person). I believe there's some argument at cross purposes going on because you're using disparate definitions for the terms. (Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my perception.)

 

[David Brider]

Maybe things would be clearer here if those involved (Shane, David, roflcopter, and any others participating) were to simply state their definition of the words "homosexuality" and "homosexual" (noun meaning a person). I believe there's some argument at cross purposes going on because you're using disparate definitions for the terms. (Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my perception.)

More than happy to help out if it'll clear up any confusion.

The working definition of "homosexuality" that I use is: a tendency to be romantically and/or physically attracted to people of the same gender as oneself.

And a homosexual, by extension of that, is someone who tends to be romantically and/or physically attracted to people of the same gender as him/herself.

Hope that helps.

David.

 

[Shane Roach]

Okay, this has gone on long enough. I have no desire to go drag out studies that I'm not sure of the validity and objectivity of, to attempt to bulwark my own viewpoint. I can and do read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Scriptures, and both they and a direct leading from God have told me to stand in defense of gay men and women, boys and girls who are getting the short end of the stick from people who claim Christianity is their motivation.

Maybe things would be clearer here if those involved (Shane, David, roflcopter, and any others participating) were to simply state their definition of the words "homosexuality" and "homosexual" (noun meaning a person). I believe there's some argument at cross purposes going on because you're using disparate definitions for the terms. (Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my perception.)

You have no desire to back your point? You don't think you should have to? Your assertions have been countered at every turn. I do not intend to ever claim "victory" in a subject so subjective to begin with, but all of your assertions have been countered and there are no explanations forthcoming from your or others concerning either the scriptures or the studies.

I've already posted my definition of homosexuality and exactly why it is correct. Apparently I am going to have to save yet another of my posts to present over and over again when people claim something has not been addressed.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-45/#post51475849

 

[Shane Roach]

Ever seen or heard of the movie "Expelled"?

Yes, and it is an interesting counterpoint. Expelled gives every side their say, and does not mock anyone. Religulous mocks anyone who believes in any religion.

 

[Shane Roach]

I never saw a need to. I have never claimed that every study states that homosexuals have the same number of partners as homosexuals. In fact, just prior (two posts previous) to your post I stated: "In fact, most studies that compare show that the number of sexual partners between heterosexual men and homosexual men are relatively similar, though there are one or two studies (one that ShaneRoach loves to use) that show a percentage of gays tend to have more sexual partners."

Then you should have no trouble, like BigBadWlf before you, in presenting all this mass of evidence.

When he said he was presenting such evidence, he turned out to be demonstrably mistaken at best.

And you see no need to address his misleading words as I have posted several times on this thread, but you find in the inadvertent use of the word "all" instead of "most", or "the vast majority", or, "almost all," a ready tool to accuse people who disagree with you of some level of dishonesty or lack of integrity?

Here is the link, again, since you refuse to address the point.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7358406-24/#post51416556

It's not my study you see, or at least not exclusively so. BigBadWlf insisted that it proved his point. BigBadWlf, like you, insists there are massive numbers of studies supporting the idea that homosexuals are not promiscuous, and these two studies are some of what he posted in support of that conclusion.

His words concerning what the studies said were demonstrably false.

Perhaps you have some studies that are not demonstrably false? Perhaps you would be willing to denounce the habitual habit of spam posting dozens of articles that do not demonstrate homosexuality is harmless and healthy, and insisting that it nevertheless is?

If this case is so airtight, if it is so open and shut, why do we have this sort of thing cropping up? Rather than taking studies that say the exact opposite of what gay rights activists argue, why do you or BigBadWlf not cite the studies, which supposedly would be easy to find since they are in the vast majority, that actually do prove the points you keep trying to make.

I don't even care if the APA supports homosexuality. As far as I am concerned, where the legality or morality of things is concerned, the APA is outside its purview in making such statements as "homosexuality is not immoral." You folks are the ones riding on the coat tails of the APA, appealing to their percieved authority to make arguments about the nature of homosexuality. So go ahead... I have no dog in this hunt. Prove the point and start citing studies that say what you insist most of them say.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, and it is an interesting counterpoint. Expelled gives every side their say, and does not mock anyone.

You need to look at this page: Expelled Exposed.

Expelled (thanks to tactics byits production team) is not an honest look at the evolution/ID issue. They interviewed people under false pretenses, they edited the interviews to make the statements of evolutionists look incoherent or absurd, they likened evolutionists to Nazis, and they made claims they knew to be false.

The first two, especially, show that Expelled did not give both sides their say. They gave one side their say, then rejigged what the other side said into what they wanted the other side to appear to be saying.

 

[sidhe]

You need to look at this page: Expelled Exposed.

Expelled (thanks to tactics byits production team) is not an honest look at the evolution/ID issue. They interviewed people under false pretenses, they edited the interviews to make the statements of evolutionists look incoherent or absurd, they likened evolutionists to Nazis, and they made claims they knew to be false.

The first two, especially, show that Expelled did not give both sides their say. They gave one side their say, then rejigged what the other side said into what they wanted the other side to appear to be saying.

That website is clearly traditionally leftist group propaganda designed to verb that induces negative effect Christians!

 

[Shane Roach]

You need to look at this page: Expelled Exposed.

Expelled (thanks to tactics byits production team) is not an honest look at the evolution/ID issue. They interviewed people under false pretenses, they edited the interviews to make the statements of evolutionists look incoherent or absurd, they likened evolutionists to Nazis, and they made claims they knew to be false.

The first two, especially, show that Expelled did not give both sides their say. They gave one side their say, then rejigged what the other side said into what they wanted the other side to appear to be saying.

I saw expelled, and all the arguments I ever hear from evolution's proponents are in there. It's just that it also exposes the attitudes behind the statements.

"It's just so boring," is hardly a reason to discount something that might be true.

There is an underlying point to the conflict between Christianity and evolution, or the big bang theory, or abiogenesis theories, and it is that if science attempts to look into the past and draw conclusions, it is impossible for scientists in our current day to go back and test those conclusions. What has happened before stays in the past forever, and even if you were to prove conclusively that any or all three of these things could have happened, it does not prove that they did.

Fact is, we are nowhere near proving any of them are even possible explanations in the first place.

What this has to do with homosexuality is that science is constantly being called out as supportive of socialist agendas, but when you look at it very closely at all the arguments do not hold water. It's whatever excuse is needed at the moment to shut down open discussion and just make something happen, whether it is forbidding people to pray over a school intercom, or forbidding people to even discuss God or His Creation act in a classroom, or whether it is insisting science has proven homosexuality normal and healthy, it is always directed at Christianity and it is always based on marginal science at best.

 

[Shane Roach]

Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic.

"We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8&#37; of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p<0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior."

Please note that in addition to referring to homosexuality as a behavior, it also contradicts the idea that it is not learned or learnable. Homosexual potential is widespread, but the behavior itself is limited. In cases where some genetic influence was recognized, even then only a portion of gays had the genetic influence, and many who were not gay had the genetic influence but still behaved heterosexually.

So both from the purely linguistic and even from the sense of attraction, there appears to be no support for the idea that the scientific community is of one mind that the phrase, "homosexuality is a behavior," is somehow unscientific or inaccurate.

 

[Skaloop]

Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic.

"We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8% of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p<0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior."

Please note that in addition to referring to homosexuality as a behavior, it also contradicts the idea that it is not learned or learnable. Homosexual potential is widespread, but the behavior itself is limited. In cases where some genetic influence was recognized, even then only a portion of gays had the genetic influence, and many who were not gay had the genetic influence but still behaved heterosexually.

So both from the purely linguistic and even from the sense of attraction, there appears to be no support for the idea that the scientific community is of one mind that the phrase, "homosexuality is a behavior," is somehow unscientific or inaccurate.

If they thought that "homosexuality is a behaviour" then all the bolded portions would just say "homosexuality" instead of "homosexual behaviour." They use "homosexual behaviour" specifically to differentiate the acts from the innate attractions. A homosexual can engage in "heterosexual behaviour" as well, but they nonetheless remain homosexual.

Homosexuality is a trait. A homosexual can choose to participate in homosexual behaviour or not, yes, but they cannot choose to be homosexual.

Just like heterosexuality.

 

[beechy]

Potential for homosexual response is prevalent and genetic.

"We investigated the potential to engage in homosexual behavior in 6001 female and 3152 male twins and their siblings finding that 32.8&#37; of the men and 65.4% of the women reported such potential (p<0.001). 91.5% of these men and 98.3% of these women reported no overt homosexual behavior during the preceding 12 months. The potential to engage in homosexual behavior was influenced by genetic effects for both men (37.4%) and women (46.4%) and these overlapped only partly with those for overt homosexual behavior."

Please note that in addition to referring to homosexuality as a behavior, it also contradicts the idea that it is not learned or learnable. Homosexual potential is widespread, but the behavior itself is limited. In cases where some genetic influence was recognized, even then only a portion of gays had the genetic influence, and many who were not gay had the genetic influence but still behaved heterosexually.

So both from the purely linguistic and even from the sense of attraction, there appears to be no support for the idea that the scientific community is of one mind that the phrase, "homosexuality is a behavior," is somehow unscientific or inaccurate.

Homosexuality can be described in terms of both desire and behavior. I don't think the phrase "homosexuality is a behavior" is accurate, though.

Jim is only sexually attracted to woman. Through a series of misfortunes he finds himself living on the streets, where he learns there are very lucrative opportunities for male prostitutes who service wealthy business men. He becomes such a prostitute and continues doing it for a while because it pays well, even though he gets no sexual pleasure from it. Is he gay?

Stanley is only sexually attracted to men. He's very embarassed by it, however, and desperately wants to be "normal". As a result, he only dates women and ends up marrying Jill. They are married for several years even though he fantasizes about men every time he is intimate with her. He loves Jill as a person, but feels no romantic attraction to her or any other woman. In fact, he has a crush on a male coworker, although he would never tell anyone his secret. Is he straight?

Here's an analogy for ya (and true story ) I have never been good at math. As a kid in school I always excelled in reading and writing courses, and struggled with numbers. It just never came naturally to me like it did for some other students, and I didn't enjoy doing it at all. That doesn't mean I couldn't push my way through it -- and I did. I had an excellent math teacher in high school and ended up taking calculus as a junior, and advanced calculas / quadratics as a senior. Did I like it? Nope. Did it ever become easy for me? Nope. I just did it because I knew I needed it to get in to college ... where I dropped it as quickly as I could in favor of the social sciences and humanities which I enjoyed and continued to excel at.

I think of homosexuality in much the same way. People are born with proclivities. Does this mean a gay man can't have sex with a woman? No. Does it mean that he can't try to explore or develop that side of himself that may be attracted to women? No. Does that mean such an exploration will change how he feels about women ... or men? Maybe, maybe not. I'm pretty sure that all the math tutors in the world couldn't make me a mathematician -- or, at least, they could never make me better at numbers than I am with words. It's just not me. I don't have an inner Pythagorus, and if I was forced to look for it rather than be allowed to go with what I'm naturally good at I think I'd be pretty miserable.

Similarly, I think there are bisexuals out there (i.e., those who are somewhere in between a 1 and a 6 on the Kinsey scale) who can probably consciously or subconsciously suppress the side of themselves that is attracted to the same sex. But the question is why should they feel forced to do so?

Why would you try to force someone who is a gifted writer that is primarily or exclusively attracted to the same sex to be a heterosexual accountant? It just doesn't make any sense.

I guess you'd first have to buy into the idea that it is bad to be homosexual, and for those of us who disagree, this seems like nothing but a mean spirited exercise in frustration.